This just in from Scientific American: an opinion piece about the kind of superstate that the environmental movement would like us to have in response to AGW:

To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?

Bishop Hill and WUWT are both making much of this: To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. If CAGW-inspired regulation is to make any sense, it must be universal. There must be a World Government. There are those of us ...

I guess that they then want to introduce a new form of democracy, the post modern type of democracy. A democracy which is not based on votes by the electorate but by votes from eco-NGO’s, academic experts and from big business, you know from those who know what the people really want. All in the name of saving the climate.

I think the article is a reasonable assessment of the truly insurmountable problems with the social engineering approach to climate change. It just ain't realistic, and I'm glad to see someone in the scienctific community recognizing that. The human race has survived and thrived through a million years of climate change - flood, drought, rising and falling temperatures and sea levels, advancing and retreating glaciers - through our talent for adaptation. What has worked so far, is most likely to continue to work.

The worrying thing about the Scientific American article is that it appears to be genuine and written in good faith. Stix isn't saying "Hey guys, look at these huge socio-psychological problems, they're insurmountable, it'll never work", but rather "We've got to concentrate on them, the other stuff is trivial". And SA is read (or at least admired) and believed by people in positions of power, which is the really worrying thing -- the people who spend our money, that is. They won't look at the comments below the article, which are mainly pointing out how ridiculous it is -- they will take it at face value and start earmarking money for new projects. And so the gravy train will roll on, at the expense of the rest of us.

"Crap like this does more damage to their cause than the Heartland Institute could ever dream of."Mar 18, 2012 at 8:07 PM | Menth

I think you're missing the point, Menth. This crap is the very essence of their cause. It's just that many who are supporting climate alarmism, the vehicle being used for realising this agenda, don't see or understand the bigger picture.

The unrelenting focus of sustainability, CO2 pricing, emissions control and climate related legislation is merely a means to an end. If they were serious about the environment they would have a focus on pollution. Where is it? Where is the focus on arresting deforestation - which incidentally is also happening to make way for wind turbines? Where is there evidence they are serious about habitat protection?

This is not a conspiracy theory. The evidence is popping up all over the place and has been for years. Arguing with them about the flawed science of climate change is a waste of time. Defeat them and the cause will simply manifest itself in another way but with the same objectives and methods of 'mitigation'. The battle is not about science, it is about politics.

"President of You Gov Peter Kellner delivers the 2012 David Butler Lecture on the subject 'The second superpower? The role of public opinion in the 21st century', from 5 March. Available until 9:49PM Sat, 24 Mar 2012"

Basic message is, as far as I can tell, he is not a fan of referendums and direct public participation in decisions. Leave it to legislators. Issues such as Climate Change and EU membership quoted as examples where electorate may make "wrong" choices. Seemed to present confused and contradictory views on the ease of conducting referendums with todays technology - ie it was all easy up until he gave an example on the NHS. Maybe I missed it but I thought relevant discussion of superstate EU and its role in representative democracy was notable by its absence. No mention of world gov as far as I recall, so apols if too far OT.

how do left-wing AGW alramists/AlGorean Church members clean their ears? They use only one cotton ear-bud to clean both ears. They push the ear-bud into one ear and keep pushing until it exist out of the other ear.

lmao...I made a post at Stoaty's site demonstrating that, at conservative rates of return (5%), we would all need to invest £500k now to save the lives of the people supposedly going to be flooded out in Bangladesh in 50 years' time.....surprisingly, my post was edited out....Money talks...but it don't sing or dance or even walk.;

"Robert Socolow that set out a well-reasoned plan for how to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm."& "Since doing that issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part."

This is the same Scientific American that trashed Bjorn Lomborg for his Sceptical Environmentalist? That alone convinced me that the magazine is irrelevant. A respectable scientific journal could never countenance publishing such totalitarian drivel.

***and why would it be "little known"? the days when the MSM INFORMED the public about matters of such fundamental importance are history.

15 March: Tennessean: TN House passes resolution condemning Agenda 21The state House of Representatives voted 72-23 in favor of House Joint Resolution 587, which denounces the non-binding Agenda 21 plan adopted by a United Nations environmental conference two decades ago…***Little known even in environmental and planning circles until recently, Agenda 21 has grabbed the attention of conservative groups, who say the document calls on national and local governments to pursue environmental goals by limiting property rights and freedom..Two other states, Georgia and New Hampshire, have considered anti-Agenda 21 measures this year…http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120315/NEWS/303150098/TN-House-passes-resolution-condemning-Agenda-21

Consider Pachauri's July 2009 ""vision" of AR 5, which includes such gems as:

Climate change needs to be assessed in the context of sustainable development, and this consideration should pervade the entire report across the three Working Groups. In past assessments sustainable development and its various linkages with climate change were seen largely as an add-on. Most governments who have commented on this issue have highlighted the need to treat sustainable development as an overarching framework in the context of both adaptation and mitigation.

And - notwithstanding Mann and his latest tree-ring circus circuit - add to this, the profusion of "High Level" panels, pronouncements and papers that are being produced en route to Rio+20.

The UNEP's head honcho, Achim Steiner - who has never met a perceived problem he could not turn into the "greatest threat to the future of the planet"™ - is pushing for "strengthening" the UNEP.

First Round of ‘Informal-Informal’ Negotiations on the Zero Draft of the Outcome Document and Third Intersessional Meeting of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20)

19-23 and 26-27 March 2012 | UN Headquarters, New York, United States of America

[...]

Negotiations will be based on the “zero draft,” which was developed by the Co-Chairs and Bureau of the UNCSD Preparatory Committee. Titled “The Future We Want,” the document was released on 10 January 2012. The draft incorporates the input received by the UNCSD Secretariat from Member States and other stakeholders by 1 November 2011 (referred to as the “compilation document”) as well as comments offered during the 15-16 December 2011 Second Intersessional Meeting of the UNCSD.

UNSCD= United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, btw.

And as for this "zero draft" of "The Future We Want" ... I had commented on this previously [see here and here, for example]

And make no mistake about it ... the NGOs' input into these "drafts" is far from absent ... considering that the UNCSD has significantly increased the number of NGOs accredited with "special consultative status" over the past twenty years.

Seems to me that what you folks have experienced on that side of the pond, thanks to the Eurocrats, is but a (you should pardon the expression) model of "greater" things to come ... thanks to the UNocrats.

And don't forget Sustainia mania - and Schwarzenneger joined by a triumvirate of:

o Former Prime Minister of Norway and Former Director General of WHO, Gro Harlem Brundtland, who founded the global sustainability agenda 20 years ago at the first Rio conference in 1992 on sustainable development [emphases added -hro]

Perhaps there is an alternate explanation for this confluence of "developments" in the run-up to Rio+20, but I, for one, have yet to find one that fits the facts. Perhaps during the "‘Informal-Informal’ Negotiations on the Zero Draft of the Outcome Document" those participating will resoundingly reject such formulations as:

The peoples of the world will simply not tolerate continued environmental devastation or the persistent inequality which offends deeply held universal principles of social justice.[...]Achieving sustainability requires us to transform the global economy.

Are you sure this is not just a poor satire?The author of the SA article is a Mr. Stix. I am reminded that "stygian" -- a synonym for "hellish" -- is derived from "Styx." Or is this life imitating fable?

Cripes, this Ecofascist doesn't even pretend to subscribe to democratic principles. He chats away about coercion and social engineering and making everyone on the planet sing off the same hymn sheet (his) without a blush. No prizes for guessing who the thinks should be a key member of the 'team' running the new regime.

It's beyond parody.

I think that this article, with the picture of Scott Mandia in his Superhero outfit, should be published far and wide. There are still a lot of basically decent people who support the CAGW meme out there who would be horrified at what their would-be overlords have in mind.

some of you may have heard this ridiculous mutual admiration pair, BBC's Peter Day and Alan Moore, promoting something similar to Stix:

BBC World Service: Global Business with Peter DayPeter Day hears from Alan Moore author of No Straight Lines: making sense of our non-linear world and asks him ‘what next’ for the industrialised world.In his book he argues that the industrialised world is facing the combined problems of social, organisational and economic complexity.In this edition of Global Business he tells Peter Day how No Straight Lines interprets the disruptive trends shaping our world and how companies can address the challenges and move onwards and upwards.http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00ph35n/Global_Business_No_Straight_Lines/

re the “ICSU-sponsored Planet Under Pressure conference in London” which was mentioned by Biermann & Bernstein in the Guardian article

15 March: Guardian: How Rio+20 can herald a constitutional momentThe conference should focus on assessing the governance reforms required to put the planet on a more sustainable pathFrank Biermann and Steven Bernsteinhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/15/rio20-constitutional-moment

19 March: Daily Mail: Tom Leonard: Broken down and rusting, is this the future of Britain's 'wind rush'? Broken promises: The rusting wind turbines of HawaiiA breathtaking sight awaits those who travel to the southernmost tip of Hawaii’s stunningly beautiful Big Island, though it’s not in any guidebook. On a 100-acre site, where cattle wander past broken ‘Keep Out’ signs, stand the rusting skeletons of scores of wind turbines.Just a short walk from where endangered monk seals and Hawksbill turtles can be found on an unspoilt sandy beach, a technology that is supposed to be about saving the environment is instead ruining it...Yet the 27-year-old Kamaoa Wind Farm remains a relic of the boom and inglorious bust of America’s so-called ‘wind rush’, the world’s first major experiment in wind energy.At a time when the EU and the British Government are fully paid-up evangelists for wind power, the lesson from America — and the ghostly hulks on this far-flung coast — should be a warning of their folly...But most importantly for the scrum of investors who were thrusting their snouts into the trough, there was the extraordinary generosity of the government. Between 1981 and 1985, federal and state subsidies in California were so favourable that investors could recover 50 per cent of the cost of a wind turbine. Even better, the amount they were paid for their electricity was tied to the price of oil, which had shot through the roof...Not to put too fine a point on it, for some wind energy investors it was simply a tax scam. But as tends to happen with a business that is driven by financial incentives, it lasted only as long as the subsidies...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116877/Is-future-Britains-wind-rush.html

"How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to 'discount' the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?"

I'm not a religious person. I'm not even a theist. But it seems to me that this kind of thinking can be a real problem for some people, now that we've pretty much ditched religion. If there's no god there to look after tomorrow, then isn't it sensible to be in a permanent state of worry?

Back in ye olde dayse thay would have read the following, and felt better. (It's one of the few parts of the bible that contains a grain of wisdom for me.)

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life? And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself."

Those who comment here are precisely the kind of people that Plato, Ayn Rand, Pol Pot - and now Gary Stix - need to get on board to put their sordid little fantasies into practise. So why does Gary seemingly go out of his way to irritate us?The answer must lie in the social milieu in which he and his kind work - essentially academia and the media. These milieux are characterised by a non-hierarchical structure, with much informal power-sharing and decision by consensus. This kind of gentlemanly anarchy is fragile, inefficient, and prone to power grabbing and corruption. It can only work (sort of) because academia and the media have both enjoyed a vast expansion over the past fifty years, ensuring an ever larger pie to be shared out. Nobody minds too much if a university, an ad agency or a newspaper is run inefficiently by a bunch of incompetent posers, as long as the steady expansion of students / clients / readers ensures that there’s pie for everyone.The Garys of this world just can’t understand that the practical, productive parts of the universe can’t be run like a non-stop international conference of social scientists. They want us to be like them, and are led to imagine ever more absurd structures to make this happen. They must be told very firmly that they are mistaken.

One of the questions asked, "Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?" has been answered, I think in Emmanuel Goldstein's seminal work "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism".

As a literal aside. To the right hand side of the article is a link to neuroware ears, following that to neuroware.com is ths link:- http://www.extremetech.com/computing/120583-new-speech-jamming-gun-hints-at-dystopian-big-brother-future

If you can convince them that you are a student, you can attend the Planet Under Pressure Conference ( http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/index.asp ) for a trifling 300 pounds. You can hob-nob with Richard Black, who will moderate a panel, John Beddington, Jeremy Bentham, Yvo de Boer, Keith Clarke, Anthony Giddens... a truly target-rich environment.... oh yes, Andrew Revkin is scheduled to attend as well.

The optimates are seeking to sideline the populares with the help of high priests and astrologers in order to regain the power over hoi polloi. The last time this happened it didn't end well for the optimates. We got a world government alright and a fascist one at that. Then the warming ended and we entered the dark ages.

johanna"Cripes, this Ecofascist doesn't even pretend to subscribe to democratic principles. He chats away about coercion and social engineering and making everyone on the planet sing off the same hymn sheet (his) without a blush. No prizes for guessing who the thinks should be a key member of the 'team' running the new regime"

Let me look at my crystal ball:

Michael Mann, who may be the greatest advocate of the concept of scienticisation of politics might be the one more than likely to be honoured as the first official president of the world. But it is highly likely that he may refuse the offer out of sheer scientific modesty, and the job could go to the most likely candidate, Al Gore, the former Vice-President of the world police. :D

On a more serious note, if they keep advocating a world government in order to deal with CAGW, 'Ecofascist' would be the most apt term to describe them.

geoffchambersThere are several possibilities.First, since we are deniers there is no point in trying to get us "on-side" because nothing they say can get through our thick skulls. Anyway, we are a minority; better to concentrate on anaesthetising the sheeple, then we can be discounted. (Sidelined rather than onside!)Second, we are by nature the awkward squad. So to an extent point one applies. All we will do is disrupt by asking (im)pertinent questions which they either have to deal with or ignore. Either way the sheeple start doubting. Best to just shut us out.Third, they are not as confident in their argument as they try to make out. We, on the other hand, are pretty confident that their arguments are a smokscreen for something else and are developing our own arguments to refute theirs.Autonomous Mind is right. Once 'climate change' is dead the bandwagon will continue rolling with a new scare along the road to whatever the élite are seeking. World domination in some form, probably. But the more we pick holes in their scare du jour the more difficult it becomes for them to reach their political target. It's a race where they have had the edge for 20 years because we didn't know what they were up to.Some of us do now and some of then know we've sussed them but still they will press on because they're fanatics. And that, as George Smiley said referring to Karla, will be their downfall.

Blimey, look at this Policy Brief from pats link "Transforming governance and institutions for a planet under pressure"

http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/policy_instframe.pdf

Truly frightening, I can't believe how blatant they are about Global Governance. If everyone in the country read that, there surely would be mass protest on a grand scale, perhaps not considering they have already been brainwashed by the constant doom-mongering.

Fabrice Muamba "has been able to recognise family members and respond to questions appropriately", his club Bolton and hospital have jointly said.

The 23-year-old can "breathe independently" without a ventilator but remains in intensive care after a cardiac arrest on Saturday.

A joint statement by the London Chest Hospital and Bolton said he continued "to show signs of improvement".

It added his condition was no longer critical but remained serious.

Muamba of course came to the UK as a refugee from the country with the worse level of mass killings in the last fifteen years of anywhere. And in that time football via satellite has become a major link from the UK to many places all over Africa, even fairly small villages - something that is not enough thought about. But back to what the UK papers say:

The front page of today's Sun newspaper is devoted to the headline "God is in Control" below the subheading "Praying for Muamba". "In God's Hands" says the Daily Star. Chelsea defender Gary Cahill pulled off his shirt after scoring yesterday to reveal a vest encouraging supporters to "Pray 4 Muamba", his former team-mate.

I was watching the match on Saturday and like so many others prayed with my girlfriend for Muamba as he was carried off. The link with what you said? What's needed is something that works. A bit like proper science. Thanks again for being on that track.

John Fonte has been warning about World Government or Trans-Nationalism for many years. Here is a review of his latest book "Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled By Others?" at

Scientific American (just like Nature) is controlled since 1986 by the Holtzbrincks, an aristocratic German family with nazi ties and strong autocratic and eugenic tendencies which hold a media empire.No wonder why it editoriazes on the need for global governance. It's just one more instance of ecofascism at work.